FOLLOW US

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday refused to take up the decade-long whistleblower battle brought by a former BNSF Railway conductor who claimed he was fired for performing a brake test, letting stand a Ninth Circuit ruling that the railroad proved he was terminated for policy violations, not retaliation.

High Court Denies Certiorari in Long-Running FRSA Clash

In its order list, the justices rejected an October petition for certiorari filed by the estate of Curtis Rookaird, who died in 2021. His estate argued that lower courts had misapplied the Federal Railroad Safety Act (FRSA) when they ruled that BNSF was not liable for retaliation.

The Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, ruled in May that although Rookaird’s brake test was a protected activity under the FRSA—borrowing its retaliation standard from the Wendell H. Ford Aviation Investment and Reform Act for the 21st Century—BNSF had convincingly shown that Rookaird would have been fired regardless, citing inefficiency, insubordination, and policy violations.

A Decade of Litigation Rooted in a Single Brake Test

The February 2010 Incident

Rookaird filed suit in 2014, contending he was punished for conducting an air-brake check on February 23, 2010, before moving a 42-car train to storage. The brake test went forward despite a trainmaster’s uncertainty about whether it was required.

Hours later, the crew had not completed the move. They were instructed to sign out and leave, but Rookaird marked the wrong time on his time sheet, failed to sign it, and reportedly argued with another employee in the lunchroom instead of going home. A BNSF investigation concluded he had been inefficient, dishonest, and noncompliant—grounds the railroad said justified termination.

Verdict Won, Trimmed, Vacated — and Re-Litigated

A federal jury awarded Rookaird $1.6 million in 2016, later reduced. But after cross-appeals, the Ninth Circuit vacated the award in 2018. The court held that the brake test—though not legally required—still fell under FRSA protections, but said Rookaird had not sufficiently proven the test contributed to his firing.

After Rookaird’s death, his estate administrator Paul Parker continued the case. A bench trial in 2022 again favored BNSF, finding the brake test played only a minor role in the termination decision.

The Ninth Circuit panel partially reversed that ruling in August 2024, prompting a rehearing by the full court. The en banc decision in May ultimately sided with BNSF, setting the stage for the estate’s unsuccessful Supreme Court appeal.